Template talk:Campaignbox Iraq War

Military history: North America / United States

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Adding The Mahdi Army april-june 2004 uprising

I would want to suggest to make and add an article about the Mahdi army uprising of april 2004, and for it to be added to the campaignbox, it was something like the Vietnam Tet offensive and I think it should be added. Any opinions? --User:Top Gun

Adding TWO battles

I have a suggestion to add two more battles to the Campaignbox Iraq War. The battle of Ramadi, April 6 2004, and The battle of Husaybah April 17 2004, both were minor engaments, not on the scale of Fallujah, Baghdad or Najaf, and lasted only a day, but the soldiers themselves said that they were fierce fights, and in both battles more than a dozen Marines were killed, 12 in Ramadi and 5 in Husaybah, and also 150 insurgents per battle were involved. They were notable battles like the Battle of Mogadishu. So if anybody's for this say it. I think it would be a good add to the Campaignbox Iraq War, and also would help to diffirentiat these casualties from the casualties suffered in the first battle for Fallujah because they have been included in that battle because these battles were initiated by the insurgents to relive pressure from the siege of the city. So who's up for this?

I suggest you first start these articles, in hope you have information about those battles. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a battle

Should the Battle of Debecka Pass be added to this campaignbox, or is it too insignificant? --Roman Babylon 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militias

Removed "militias" - it's not a phase of the conflict

Campaignbox size

I've just merged in what appears to be a pretty comprehensive list of operations; unfortunately, this has made the campaignbox rather large. There are two main options I can see for reducing the size:

Split the box (either purely chronologically, or by theater/campaign/geography, but it's not clear what useful non-chronological dividing lines are present here) into three or four separate campaignboxes. Since most articles would only have one box, that would reduce the visual impact.
Merge some of the stubbier articles into one or more overview pieces on operations in the war. Some of the entries here look to be extremely minor operations that will probably stay as permanent stubs, so collecting them together will be the better strategy (and let us reduce the size of the box at the same time).

Kirill Lokshin 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've created Military operations of the Iraq War as an overview article for all the operations involved, and will start merging some of the smaller ones there, trimming them from the campaignbox as I go. Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'Operation Peninsula Strike' Belong

Sounds like your standard large-scale raid and round up of suspects. No different from Operation Rifles Blitz or any other uneventful city wide search. - Atfyfe 06:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. removed. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG

I suggest splitting the box into campaigns: 2003 invasion, 2004 uprising, and 2005-present. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the campaignbox is getting a little big. Not sure about splits-is it possible to match the "Phases"(invasion-insurgency, etc) to a good split. Publicus 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Baghdad campaignbox and or an Anbar province one? A lot of these are in either of those? Publicus 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be hard with the 2004 uprising beaing on both fronts where would you put that one then. Listen here is a proposition and you take it in to considiration. We split in two to boxes one for engagements and one for major suicide attacks like the Ashoura massacre, Sadr city bombing, and the 22nd january and 3 february Baghdad bombings and also maybe it would be a good ide to add the Hilla bombing of february 2005 because more 120 people died there also. User:Top Gun 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks

Should major terrorist attacks such as the 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings and the 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing be listed as "engagements" in the campaignbox? Black Falcon 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment regarding the new design: not all of the incidents noted in the "bombings" campaignbox are "suicide bombings" (al-Aqsari mosque, Sadr City). Please consider renaming to "major bombings", "terrorist attacks", etc. Black Falcon 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to battles campaignbox

..because everything in this box is already included in the {{Iraq War}} template?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This box was thought off by me, Publicus, Freepsbane, several other users and you yourself TheFEARgod two years ago to link to distinct phases of the war and also to link to a section that containes exclusivly a list of battles and a section that contains exclusivly a list of bomb attacks. The current box that contains all of the battles has become just too big so it is better this way that that box is only in the article which lists coalition operations of the war. And this box links to that one. Already, the current {{Iraq War}} template is just fine. But, like every war article there should be one campaignbox at the beggining of the article, and because of the nature of this war this box is just like it should be.89.216.236.45 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for merge. Because the Template:Iraq War has everything that this template has, so it doesn't need. We should delete the Template:Campaignbox Iraq War battles and transfer everything from there to here (just like many other other war templates, eg:Template:Campaignbox Korean War or Template:Campaignbox Vietnam War). Why is only this war different? 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote not to merge because... If you remove the current campaignbox then we should have to put the big one but then people would have to go to the template at the end of the article to link to the box with the list of all mayor bombings. This little campaignbox is just like it should be, nice and neat. Links to the battles and bombings seperately and in one place. And what made you change your mind to discuss this situation 207.233.67.8 after more than two months of attempts to unilateraly change the campaignbox without talking? And the answer to your question. This one is different because the Vietnam war and the Korean war didn't have mayor terrorist bombings with 100+ dead during them, they are an integral part of this war and there should be a template that links to the box with the bombings and to the box with the battles.89.216.236.45 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to cleaning this up, added timelines and the battle campaignbox with a hide button, a better now. Publicus 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

Should we have 1990-2002 in there, I think it's helpful but wanted to see what other editors thought. Publicus 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]